Army Considers Bringing Battle Rifles Back To War

Bearing Arms ^ | 5 Apr, 2017 | Bob Owens

[MtnClimber]

For the first time since the M14 was issued in the early days of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army is giving serious consideration to bringing the battle rifle back to war. According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.

Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm. Although at this point, I’ll keep that exact exact distance close to the vest. The goal here is to foster a dialogue about the 7.62 requirement in general, and not offer operational specifics.

It’s important to establish right up front that 7.62mm is not the Army’s end goal. The “Interim” component of this capability’s name relies on a plan to eventually adopt one of the 6.5mm family of intermediate calibers. Currently, elements of the Army are evaluating .260, .264 USA and .277 USA. The .260 is commercially available while .264 USA and .277 USA are developments of the Army Marksmanship Unit. Unfortunately, the US Army doesn’t plan to conduct an intermediate caliber study until the early 2020s. That’s why they want to adopt 7.62mm now. The idea is to adopt the Battle Rifle to deal with a newly identified threat with what’s available now, and transition the fleet to an intermediate caliber cartridge, once its selected.

[MtnClimber]

At distances over 300 yards I would prefer trained marksmen with a Remington 700 in 30-06 or 338 with a good 4-12X scope and some with M14s.

[Jeff Chandler]

You have described all so well why I am grateful to have been a little too young for Vietnam. Thank you for having been there instead of me.

I couldn't have said it better.

[Dogbert41]

"What are you using for scope mount.... "

==============

It was the DSA scope mount. It eas very solid. It replaces the sheet metal top cover. You don't need to take it off to remove your bolt group to clean your rifle, but if you do, you won't lose zero. The FAL design breaks open like a single shot shotgun. When I had my DSA, I kept my Aimpoint Comp M on it. It was really nice and someday I'll get built another off the parts kit I have. The last time I had an M1A I bought the milspec scope mount and a $600 milspec scope, we're talking the 80s here so what would it be today? And that pig wouldn't keep zero between magazines no matter what I did, so even though it was dependable, and had all the actual M14 parts and bolt, etc., i considered the mount and scope to be a total waste.

[FreedomPoster]

Thanks.

[Dogbert41]

That may have been true then, but as of the WOT, and the advent of the American Soldiers and Marines with optics on their M4 carbines and rifles, a lot of oversears of war crimes were getting upset at all the headshot kills going on. They were intimating that these kills were all executions! Not great marksmanship, which is what it was. When you have a $1200 Acog on an average MOA capable rifle, and you are firing from fixed positions on attacking jihadis, well shazzam.

[dangerdoc]

I’ve read the theory that the DOD analyzed the number of rounds expended and divided by the confirmed casualties in WW2 and ended up with an absurdly high number.

Their solution was to find a way to increase the number of rounds expended by going to a smaller caliber. What they ended up with was a more absurd round expended to casualty ratio.

[SanchoP]

How do you like the scout scope?

I probably wouldn't have used it but it was set up that way when I bought it. I tried a conventional scope but it made the rifle feel "awkward" and you don't gain much (if any).

That's a 2-6x32 Bushnell pistol scope on a replacement heat shield with the picatinny rail built on it. It's a cheap setup ($200-$250) but I've used it on everything from prairie dogs to hogs and have no complaints.

[laplata]

You nailed it. Welcome Home!

[laplata]

Thank you!

[sarge83]

M1 Carbine with a 110 grain lead hollow point is a nasty round!

[sarge83]

My late father-in-law had a friend who was in Vietnam and his unit was out in the bush on patrol and they got hit by the enemy and said he watched one of his friends take his M16 and start shooting a charging NVA regular who was closing on his friend.

He said his buddy put three or four rounds into this NVA soldier and he kept coming and that he himself was carrying a full auto M1 Carbine in addition to his M16 which he kept slung and he cut loose with the M1 and the NVA soldier hit the ground like someone had hit him with a poleaxe. He hated the M16.

[Rannug]

The early model M16s suffered from several problems, the most serious being that the Army substituted inferior steel in the firing chamber for the high chrome alloy required by the designer. Coupled with a dirty gunpowder and a lack of cleaning kits and proper instruction, the result was that early M16s in Vietnam were prone to fouling and jamming.

Yep. Thanks in a large part due to that ejaculate licking mcnamara.

[Rannug]

I have read that one of the goals is to be able to kill at 600-700 yards. The target would be good to hide behind unless really good optics were used.

[wildbill]

I read most of the comments and didn’t see anything much on some of the new rifles that are being tested with bigger calibers and even less recoil or problems with dust, mud, water, or whatever?

And they have shorter barrels than the old M-1 or M-14s, but can shoot at a respectable distance with accuracy while maintaining the capacity to be used in a urban war zone.. Gun manufacturing has come a long way.

The place to see some of these new rifles is on the channel “the Military Channel on cable.

[dynachrome]

Yup. That’s where I got it from.

[Dogbert41]

That is what i heard!!!

[archy]

I’ve read that the M16 would jam a lot from the dust in Vietnam and that the AK was better for that type of war.

But since I know #### about military weapons, maybe some with actual knowledge can chime in :)

I've carried the first M16s when they were first issued, and have run AKs since 1965. Yes, the first early ones, AK and M16 alike, had teething problems. The early GI M16s had been issued without cleaning equipment so the best that could be had was a piece of brass brazing rod or a section of parachute cord with a knot in it for a cleaning rod. And then the rains came, the monsoons, not hard, wind-driven rain, but constant drizzle day and night, that washed away all traces of oil, when there was oil to be had. The AK was a little better, but had its faults too. The early AKs had chrome-lined barrels, which helped control rust and corrosion if cleaning was delayed, the early M16s didn't share that feature. When the M16A1 came along, it did.

The M16 became the M16A1, which became the M16A2, which became the M4. Every time it's been changed, little improvements in strength and reliability have come along. And from the first time I carried a loaded Air Force M16 [not M16A1] in January 1968 till now, I've never felt badly about carrying an M16-family weapon...if it passed my initial inspection and there was good ammo and magazines for it; if not, I'd find something else. Same deal with AK47s. And AKMs. And AK74s and four or five other versions. If it's a good one, it's a good one; if not find a better one.

But I'm much more concerned about the condition of the individual weapon than its particular design, most of the time; there are some poor choices out there, but the M16 and AK are the gold standards of the world's trouble. And whatever I have, I'll keep it and its ammo and its magazines as clean and serviceable as I possibly can.

[archy]

What is the status of the work they briefly did on the 6.8 SPC? It was designed to fit in the magazine well of the M4/M16.

Mostly overshadowed by the .300 Blackout. It was also a contender in the H&K XM8 design, but the military lost interest when work with the American M249 SAW with a 6,8 barrel was limited to magazine feed. Then that feature was eliminated from Army guns, and interest was lost. Once the Germans went with their G36 instead of the XM8, the cartridge pretty well died out, though Remington still loads it. I once got to try an Australian F89 Minimi with a 6,8 barrel and prototype aluminum links. I tried to hang on to a few as souvenirs, but they weren't having any of that.

It only needed a new bolt and barrel. It had good downrange ballistics.

It required a different magazine in the M16 as well, another reason the .300BO, which works just fine with existing mags, has pretty much become the preferred choice.

[archy]

You have described all so well why I am grateful to have been a little too young for Vietnam. Thank you for having been there instead of me.

No thanks necessary, it was sporty at times, but there were moments of good times and good friends as well. But prayers and a Memorial Day thought for those who didn't make it back would be appreciated.

[archy]

You have described all so well why I am grateful to have been a little too young for Vietnam. Thank you for having been there instead of me.

No thanks necessary, it was sporty at times, but there were moments of good times and good friends as well. But prayers and a Memorial Day thought for those who didn't make it back would be appreciated.